-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add support for subtests (go 1.7) #655
Add support for subtests (go 1.7) #655
Conversation
709096d
to
353ade4
Compare
@kwk Is there anything else we need to get this approved and merged? |
@itzamna314 I'm not a maintainer and not a contributor, so I cannot tell. |
Still looking for a review from a contributor/maintainer. Looks like I'll keep copy-pasting this code into every project that uses |
353ade4
to
87c5708
Compare
@kwk Could you try adding an approving review, to see if that will allow this to be merged? I can't find any specific documentation of the contribution policies, so maybe that will work? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
This PR is there for 3 months already. Cc @viswajithiii and @georgelesica-wf since you are the most recent contributors on master branch. Anything we can do to have this get reviewed and merged? |
@letientai299 looking at it right now. I just came on to help a couple months back, and I haven't had time to look much at the backlog of PRs, I've just been dealing with them as they are brought up. |
suite/suite_test.go
Outdated
} | ||
|
||
assert.Equal(suite.T(), suite.TestOneRunCount, beforeCount+1) | ||
suite.Equal(suite.TestOneRunCount, beforeCount+1) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These would seem to pass trivially since you capture and increment on lines 158 and 159. What am I missing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Its comparing TestOneRunCount
, and the thing that got incremented was TestSubtestRunCount
.
But as far as I can tell, that's an arbitrary test that was passing coincidentally. Its been a few months since I wrote that, and maybe I had a good reason then, but I can't figure it out now at all. So I pulled those lines of the test out, to avoid future confusion. Good catch!
@itzamna314 hey would you mind resolving merge conflicts? |
ec7aa19
to
dddea20
Compare
I got the merge conflicts resolved, but ci is failing. It built on all of the targets except for tip, and for some reason tip took 4 minutes while the other targets took about 1 each. I couldn't figure out how to re-run. |
The failure on tip is a known issue. I'm hoping to fix it soon, certainly before the next release. I'm going to have one other person take a look at this tomorrow and then I'll merge it. Sorry again for the delay. |
Thanks! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Overall, I support this change to allow for subtests within a test suite. I have a few suggested documentation changes.
But, my primary concern is with the interaction between these subtests and the use of T.Parallel()
, both from a documentation standpoint and regarding the defer to reset the suite's testing context. Granted, someone calling T.Parallel
would probably understand the risks associated with running parallel tests on a stateful thing like a Suite
instance, but I would like to support them the best we can, knowing the difficulty of handling each edge case. I could also have my understanding completely wrong with regards to the interaction with T.Parallel
, so please feel free to correct me if that is the case.
suite/suite.go
Outdated
@@ -63,6 +63,20 @@ func failOnPanic(t *testing.T) { | |||
} | |||
} | |||
|
|||
// Run provides suite functionality around golang subtests. It should be | |||
// called in place of t.Run(name, func(t *testing.T)) in test suite code | |||
// to expose setup and teardown functionality for each subtest. The passed-in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
to expose setup and teardown functionality for each subtest.
This comment is confusing to me. Based on its wording, I would expect some type of before and after method is ran by the suite runner before and after each subtest (similar to the SetupSuite
and TearDownSuite
ran before and after the suite itself, or the SetupTest
, BeforeTest
, AfterTest
, and TearDownTest
ran before and after each test). I don't believe that is the intent though based on the code, and that the intent is to allow people to write subtests in which they may themselves execute setup and teardown code within their passed in function.
To address, I suggest altering this statement to something along the lines of
It may be called in place of t.Run(name, func(t *testing.T)) within tests inside a test suite.
suite/suite.go
Outdated
// Run provides suite functionality around golang subtests. It should be | ||
// called in place of t.Run(name, func(t *testing.T)) in test suite code | ||
// to expose setup and teardown functionality for each subtest. The passed-in | ||
// func will be executed as a subtest with a fresh instance of t. Provides |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
will be executed as a subtest with a fresh instance of t.
I think this can create some confusion that a *testing.T
instance will be passed to the passed-in function as a parameter. While obviously not the case based on the function signature of subtest for Suite.Run
, we could probably clean up this documentation to make clear that it is the suite's testing context (as returned by Suite.T()
) that is switched prior to execution of the given function.
Reviewing some other existing areas of code with relation to using I bring this up because testing for the T.Parallel issue I noted in my prior comments may be problematic if we have existing issues related to using T.Parallel within a suite. |
@itzamna314 Hey can you look at addressing Brandon's comments? Ideally I think we want to try not to break parallel runs any more than we already do. |
dddea20
to
9952193
Compare
9952193
to
5ecf60d
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM @georgelesica-wf
@itzamna314 thank you for your contribution and patience! |
Shouldn't SetupTest() and other interface methods be called for each golang subtest? It's a bit confusing right now that the Suite has subtests, but the Suite instance is common for each test. |
I don't think so. The desired behavior on each subtest may be different than the desired behavior on each top-level test. It's pretty simple to run some setup/teardown for each subtest. Just add a You could make that behavior more explicit, by adding an interface that does subtest setup and teardown and then using type assertions to run that interface's setup/teardown methods. It would work similar to test-level and suite-level setup/teardown. That behavior would be fully compatible with this implementation. |
I still think it's confusing that the golang subtests does not work seamless with testify/suite. If they would, you could use the flexibility of table testing together with the power of testify/suite. However, I also agree with you that its quite easy to accomplish what I'm asking for. Thanks for the overriding tip, that might come useful sometime. I've solved it now by using a separate suite instance for each subtest which becomes quite powerful: func (s *MySuite) TestSomeCases() {
subTests := map[string]MySuite {
"test1": func(suite MySuite) MySuite {
suite.SUT = mySutFunc
suite.inputData = "some data"
suite.expectedOutput = "ok"
return suite
}(*s),
}
for name, test : subTests {
test.Run(name, func(){
result := test.SUT(test.inputData)
...
})
}
} |
I arrived here after looking for an approach to writing table driven tests using testify/suite. I agree with @xcile it's unexpected that |
I also came here looking to write table-driven tests with Testify suites. As I understand it, this PR may be solving a slightly different problem than what some of us are looking to solve when we think "table-driven tests with Testify". I used the following pattern to run a single suite many times with different parameters. It will give output separated by type TestParams struct {
// Name to be given for each run of the suite
TestName String
// Various test parameters etc
Param1 string
Param2 int
}
// Your standard Testify suite struct
type MySuite struct {
suite.Suite
params *TestParams
}
// This is your test table
var params = []TestParams{
{"FirstTest", "abc", 123},
{"SecondTest", "def", 456},
{"ThirdTest", "xyz", 789},
// etc...
}
// Top-level function invoked by `go test`
func TestMySuite(t *testing.T) {
for _, param := range params {
t.Run(param.TestName, func(tt *testing.T) {
s := new(MySuite)
s.params = ¶m
suite.Run(tt, s)
})
}
}
// Parameters can be utilized in setup/teardown or individual test cases
func (s *MySuite) SetupTest() {
foo(s.params.Param1)
bar(s.params.Param2)
}
func (s *MySuite) TestMyFeature() {
// test code here...
DoSomethingTesty(s.params.Param1)
} Thanks to everyone in this thread for the contribution and discussion, I think we all appreciate the work that goes into this fantastic library! 👍 |
@mattolenik thanks that was helpful. It also works well in combination with |
Adds a
.Run(..)
method onto test suites, mimicking the semantics of testing.Run. This will make writing table-driven tests in test suites cleaner and simpler, by handling the management of*testing.T
instances transparently so that sub-tests can use the samesuite.Assert()
andsuite.Require()
methods, and have all output and test logic properly fall under the correct subtest.The major benefits of managing the
*testing.T
instance are:go test -run MyTestSuite/MyTestMethod/MySubTest